Agenda item

The North Area Senior Planner presented the report and outlined the reasons for the refusal of the application.  Planning permission had been granted in 2015 for the conversion.  Works had started which did not comply with that planning permission and were unauthorised in the officer’s view.  The current application was part retrospective to cover some works already carried out, and to seek further extension and alterations.  Some of the proposed works had already been carried out, but have now been stopped.  The roof was higher and steeper than the original structure.

The officer report concluded the proposal to be acceptable subject to conditions in respect of residential amenity, ecology, nutrient neutrality and highways.  The officer report however went on to recommend refusal as the conversion works to achieve a residential use resulted in harm to heritage and landscape.  The original building was reflective of a typical field barn, in a Conservation Area and a non-designated heritage asset.  The scheme did not achieve conservation or enhancement of the site.  The Parish Council had supported the proposal as providing a dwelling for a local family however the proposal wasn’t for a local needs affordable dwelling and limited weight afforded to provision of new market dwelling due to conflict identified with Authority’s policies for new housing provision.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

•         Mr Danny Hopkins – Applicant

John Scott, a former employee of the Authority, had acted as the agent for this application.

Members discussed the following points:

•         Clarity sought on highways position given previous recommendation for refusal. Officers clarified that although Highways continued to require additional information to conclude on highway safety, previous planning decisions had accepted the scheme on highway grounds therefore based on material considerations, highways was not a recommended reason for refusal.

•         Was the Authority trying to impose affordability and were the applied policies fit for purpose.  An inflexible approach may result in the loss of field barns by not allowing practical conversions.

•         The increase in floorspace was much larger than the criteria set out for affordable housing, and was larger than for the permission granted in 2015.

•         The 2015 application was in line with the National Park’s policies to retain the character of the building as a field barn, and allowed for sympathetic conversion of the building.  The current proposal resulted in loss of character.

•         The barn was worth conserving within development and conservation limits set out in the Authority’s policies and guidelines.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.      The proposed dwelling does not achieve the conservation and / or enhancement of a non-designated heritage asset, and it does not meet any other exception for new housing in the National Park, contrary to Core Strategy Policy HC1 and Development Management Policy DMC10.

2.      The proposed development would have an unacceptable design and would result in harm to the character and appearance of the non-designated barn and Tideswell Conservation Area. The harm to the Conservation Area would be less than substantial but would not be outweighed by any public benefits, and harm to the non-designated barn is not outweighed as part of the planning balance. The development is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policies GSP1, GSP3, L1 and L3, Development Management Policies DMC3, DMC5 and DMC8 and the NPPF.